Anonymous ID: a34398 April 29, 2020, 2:43 p.m. No.8965080   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5185 >>5279

>>8964799

By all means… Brief, by way of public document, the brass and politicians on their insurgency schemes.

Perhaps, anon, you're underestimating the true size and scale of what is being faced down, here. Forgive me - I'm one of them big thinkers who has seen all this coming for decades and who even anticipated a Q-like group to emerge from the shadows. So… I have been filling in the gaps in broad strokes of knowledge written seemingly into my bones. I know of no other way to describe it other than having a bit of an existential crisis at things making too much sense for my own good.

 

Do not think primarily in terms of a government being anything more than a castle for various groups to struggle over. But the castle is only the figure of authority - the symbol of righteousness. Whatever arbitrary writ comes from the castle is now moral and ethical code. If the law is to fork over half your income, then it is right and good to fork over half your income. Unless you mean to challenge the system and all that such a challenge implies.

 

This is why the castle is fought over so fiercely. This is a fight that has gone on many thousands of years across hundreds of civilizations. It is more proper to look at nations and define their demographic elements as fundamentally insurgent forces. Few people have it in their mind to preserve the function and sanctity of the system of the castle. They vote and decide for their advantage first and compromise to placate dissent that arises. Thus, the general trend is for each group that can tribally self-identify, even if only by way of pattern, to erode the processes and systems of the castle to advantage their interests and disadvantage their competitors. It is rare to find the person, particularly one who seeks office, who so willingly acts in the interest of objectivity and preservation of the system's ideology.

 

Did the families who supported the British give up and accept the legitimacy of the United States? Particularly in the case of those who held titles of nobility and privilege as it pertained to the Crown?

Would people, familiar with the legacy and power of the East India Trade Company look at their own swelling industrial empires and see governments as anything more than moral anchors to obligate the public to the profit of said business?

 

Governments are cute little things in the grand scheme of things. Even totalitarian kings had to appeal to the interests of noble families and broker with them for support. The king didn't just order things be done and everyone fall in line. Every family wanted to see one of their own represented as a hero, get the contract to do a thing, have exclusive rights to something, etc.

The more things change… The more they stay the same.

However… The more things try to stay the same, the more they are compelled to change.